Education researcher: Good student involvement should be part of the school of the future
There is great potential in involving students in teaching – for example, strengthening democratic education, student engagement and the quality of teaching. Involving students is an important ingredient in good teaching, but it must be framed and qualified didactically, and this is not only the responsibility of the individual teacher, says Head of Research Thomas Illum Hansen.
"It is low, but not surprisingly low in light of previous studies."
This is how the experienced education researcher and head of research Thomas Illum Hansen characterises the degree of student involvement shown by the new study from Egmont and Danish School Students. Because it confirms the picture from several previous studies. Among them, an international comparison from 2022, where Danish students in 8th grade rank second lowest among 23 countries surveyed when it comes to perceived influence on their own schooling.
He does not hesitate to point out that the current results present an obvious opportunity to discuss both the spirit and the letter of the Danish Public School Act regarding the involvement of students in the planning of teaching. But at the same time, he emphasizes that the explanation is not primarily to be found in the individual school, but rather in the framework within which the school and the teachers operate:
“Since 2001, the governance of the Danish public school system has moved in a different direction. The strong focus on evidence-based methods and measurable learning outcomes has not been conducive to student involvement. When the content and outcomes of teaching are predefined in specific, binding learning objectives, there is little room to involve students – because the essential decisions have already been made in advance.”
He points out that when teaching is instead seen as an open, dialogic, and exploratory process, it gives teachers and schools both a stronger incentive and different opportunities to involve students in meaningful ways.
“I know many teachers who have had positive experiences involving students, so of course it has been possible to do so within the existing framework—but to a large extent, it has been against the current,” says Thomas Illum Hansen.
However, he believes this is now beginning to change. The very tight, learning-outcome-driven governance has gradually been loosened—most recently with the 2024 agreement on the public school quality programme. The ongoing curriculum reform, which involves developing new curricula across all subjects, also points towards greater autonomy for individual schools and teachers.
“I have no doubt that the vast majority of teachers would like to involve students more in their teaching if the right conditions are in place. Students’ ideas and feedback also provide teachers with valuable input for planning lessons that students are engaged in and benefit from,” he says.
Must promote democratic education
According to Thomas Illum Hansen, the benefits of good involvement must be seen in the light of the purpose of the primary and lower secondary school. In the last part of the objects clause, it is stated as follows: The primary and lower secondary school must prepare the pupils for participation, co-responsibility, rights and duties in a society with freedom and democracy. The school's activities must therefore be characterized by freedom of thought, equality and democracy.
In the expert group on subject renewal in primary and lower secondary schools in which he has participated, the school's overall purpose is interpreted as "a didactic triad with education in mind" to which the teaching must contribute: commitment, knowledge and authority.
“Meaningful student participation can and should help promote all three. It can strengthen students’ engagement in both the teaching and the classroom community. At the same time, it can give them better opportunities to participate meaningfully in working with the academic content,” says Thomas Illum Hansen, and continues:
“And perhaps most importantly: The involvement helps develop students’ sense of agency – understood as the ability to think critically, make independent decisions, and act responsibly. School is also a place where students should develop this agency. They need to practise having a voice, so they can later take part in democratic society. In my view, this democratic formation is the greatest benefit of meaningful participation.”
When student involvement in teaching can promote all three of these aims, it is, according to Thomas Illum Hansen, largely due to what research on teaching quality refers to as ‘cognitive activation’ and ‘affective involvement’. In short, this means that students are mentally geared towards participating actively:
"If you are emotionally invested and prepared to participate and say something yourself, then you are mobilized and attentive. You listen in a special way. You are ready to assert your perspective. The fact that the working memory is activated means a huge amount for whether the students actually acquire the academic material they are working with."
Clear structure and strong classroom management
According to the research director, the new study confirms that students in no way expect to take over the teacher’s responsibility for planning or managing the teaching.
"In fact, their expectations are quite modest. They simply want to be more clearly involved in everyday school life – for example, by having a say in a working method, the choice of materials, or the topic they are working on,” he says.
Thomas Illum Hansen emphasises that not just any form of involvement supports the purpose of the school. In fact, poorly planned involvement can, in his view, be worse than none at all.
“It is absolutely crucial that involvement is didactically well-founded,” he stresses, pointing in particular to three key prerequisites.
First, there must be a clear framework and an appropriate structuring of the teaching, so that students are involved in ways and to an extent they can manage. Second, roles must be clearly defined, so that students understand what they can influence and what remains the teacher’s domain. Third, involvement must be explicit, so that students actually notice that they are being taken seriously and consulted.
“If the teacher is not clear about when, why, and how students are involved, involvement loses an important part of its didactic function – both in terms of engaging students and supporting their democratic formation. An important part of that formation is also learning that even if you are heard, you do not always get your way. It can even have a negative effect and create frustration if there is no clear framework for the level of influence students can expect,” says Thomas Illum Hansen.
He also points out that meaningful involvement is not primarily about designing large, ambitious programmes such as project-based learning.
“That can be important in itself. But what really matters are the many micro-actions in everyday teaching, where the teacher has considered the right way to involve students. How is the task presented? When can students choose to immerse themselves? What opportunities are there to engage with the material in different ways?”
Thomas Illum Hansen highlights the importance of embedding this kind of approach into everyday didactic practice – both for the individual teacher and across the school. It should not be seen as an additional task, but as an integrated part of the planning and preparation that teachers already undertake.
Meaningful involvement engages more students
According to the research director, many students do not feel at home in current teaching practices; they appear to need something that engages and motivates them in a different way:
“We are increasingly facing challenges related to academic well-being, declining motivation, and high absenteeism. Unfortunately, a significant number of students experience teaching as monotonous and disengaging.”
He points out that, for example, students from less educationally advantaged backgrounds can become more engaged and motivated through well-designed, involving teaching. At the same time, he emphasises that it is particularly important for this group that involvement is well structured:
“Research clearly shows that if the framework becomes too loose and unclear, it especially affects students who do not come from homes characterised by participation and a dialogic form of interaction.”
Conversely, when involvement is well calibrated and thoughtfully designed, it can strengthen all students’ motivation, academic outcomes, and democratic formation. In this way, meaningful involvement can also help compensate for the fact that some students have fewer democratic experiences and preconditions.
“There is a wide variation in what students bring from home. Not all are used to expressing themselves or being part of decision-making processes. This means that schools must both support students in developing these conditions for democratic participation and take into account that they have different prerequisites for contributing to dialogue,” says Thomas Illum Hansen.
A shared responsibility to create better conditions for meaningful involvement
If student involvement is to become a guiding principle in the future of the Danish public school system, it requires efforts at all levels, according to the research director. Most importantly, it depends on the overall framework within which schools operate. Although involvement takes place in the interaction between teachers and students in the classroom, the responsibility should not rest solely on the individual teacher, he says:
“My clear impression – also from the new study – is that teachers genuinely want to involve students more and better. It can also enhance their job satisfaction and professional engagement. But one of the prerequisites is that they themselves experience having the room for manoeuvre that they wish to give to their students.”
Thomas Illum Hansen highlights three key factors that influence teachers’ ability to work more systematically with involvement.
First, that teaching is not as outcome-driven and tightly governed by learning objectives at the national level as it has been for many years. Second, that school leadership actively supports a didactic culture of meaningful involvement. And third, that municipalities, in their governance and dialogue with schools, focus on the purpose of involvement:
“I worry that municipalities – with the best of intentions – may turn student involvement into a goal in itself. Something that is measured and managed so that politicians can say they have fulfilled students’ ‘right’ to be involved. But what really matters is how meaningful involvement is used to advance the purpose of the public school system and contribute to making teaching more meaningful. That is what should be in focus – also, for example, in municipalities’ development dialogues with schools,” concludes Thomas Illum Hansen.
Student involvement according to the experts
As part of the Danish public school quality programme from 2024, the work on the Subject Renewal was initiated. The aim is to revise and simplify the current Common Objectives and replace them with new subject curricula for all school subjects.
An expert group for the subject renewal has, in its recommendations, identified student involvement as one of four overarching didactic principles, which should be reflected in all individual subject curricula – as well as in teaching in practice:
Teaching in which students are involved and have co-determination.
The new subject curricula must support students’ involvement in decisions regarding the planning, implementation, and development of teaching. Teachers hold the overall responsibility and must collaborate with students on choices of content and working methods, while actively incorporating students’ experiences and perspectives into the teaching.”
Source: Decision-making framework, Expert Group for the Subject Renewal, Danish Ministry of Children and Education, December 2024.
About Thomas Illum Hansen
Head of Research at UCL Business Academy and University College, where he heads the Centre for Applied School Research.
His research focuses, among other things, on school development and subject didactics, with a particular emphasis on reading, curricula, and the role of teaching materials in education and educational quality.
Member of the Danish Ministry of Children and Education’s expert group (now advisory group) on curriculum reform.